Leaf and stem dry matter digestibility and ruminal undegradable proteins of alfalfa cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased dry matter digestibility and ruminal undegradable protein (RUP) concentration are traits highly ranked to improve the nutritive value of forage legumes. Whole-plant, leaf, and stem samples of 27 alfalfa cultivars grown in eastern Canada were analysed for total nitrogen (TN), in vitro RUP, and in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD). The objectives were to determine if significant variation exists among these cultivars, and to establish the relationship between nutritive value parameters of leaves and stems, and those of whole plants. Cultivars were seeded in triplicate on 2 consecutive years and evaluated during the 2 subsequent production years with two harvests per year. There were significant differences among cultivars in IVDMD of stems and plants in spring growth and summer regrowth. Cultivar differences in leaf IVDMD were significant only in spring growth, but this variation was negligible in practical terms. Cultivars with high forage IVDMD also had high stem IVDMD and this relationship was stronger in summer regrowth. Alfalfa plant IVDMD is a function of stem digestibility and the leaf weight ratio (LWR). Cultivar differences were significant for plant TN in spring growth and summer regrowth, and for stem TN in spring growth only. Leaf (270 to 306 g kg-1 TN) and stem (242 to 287 g kg-1 TN) RUP concentrations varied among cultivars in spring growth. Cultivars with high stem RUP also had high leaf RUP concentration but differences in plant RUP were not always attributed to leaf and stem RUP. The RUP concentration was on average 10% higher in leaves than in stems in spring growth, and this difference reached 15% in summer regrowth. The LWR varied among cultivars in spring growth and summer regrowth, and it was positively related to plant RUP in spring growth. Improved whole-plant RUP concentration is unlikely to be achieved by simply selecting for high RUP in leaves or stems; LWR has a principal role in determining alfalfa plant RUP concentration. Key words: Dry matter digestibility, ruminal undegradable proteins, alfalfa, genetic variation, stems, leaves
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".